Over the course of the last several years, there has been an increasing desire to maintain and encourage animal populations as a measure to promote the environment and for both subsistence and recreational hunting.
A chief concern of those interested in promoting animal populations is the provision of adequate food supplies during those times when naturally occurring forage is not sufficient to support dependent animal populations. These periods typically occur during the harsh winter and summer months but may occur at any time due to a variety of factors (drought, flood, etc.).
This concern is often addressed by the provision of some sort of feeding system (also known as a "feeder"); however, these feeding systems suffer from a number of deficiencies. One type of feeder known to the art includes an electric motor (often battery powered) and a timer. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,926,441 and 5,873,326 are examples of this type of feeder. The timer activates the motor and distributes feed (usually corn) on the ground or in troughs periodically. This feeder design often results in excessive waste of the feed because feed is dispensed without regard to demand by the dependent animal population. A further disadvantage of feeders with this design is the regular maintenance required to verify that the mechanical aspects of the feeder are in good working order (i.e., the motor and timer are still working and that there is an adequate power supply).
Still other feeders known to the art are wind- or movement-powered, thereby eliminating the need for electricity or batteries as described above. Because of the uncertain or intermittent nature of the mechanical action of this type of feeder, control of feed distribution is problematic and often results in either inadequate or excessive distribution.
In addition, prior art feeders often utilize troughs from which the dependent animal population may obtain distributed feed. This type of feeder is referred to as a "free choice feeder." One disadvantage of this feeder design is that large quantities of feed often accumulate in the troughs of free choice feeders as feed is continually deposited in the trough by the action of the distribution mechanism (i.e., the motor/timer, wind action, etc.). Thereafter, feed accumulated in the troughs is exposed to the elements and begins to decompose or spoil. A further disadvantage of this design is the ease with which undesirable animal populations (typically, squirrels, hogs, birds, etc.) may access the troughs in free choice feeders and consume feed intended for the targeted animal population. A further disadvantage of this design is the periodic maintenance required to prevent contamination of the feed supply by the feed accumulated in the troughs and the associated cleaning and maintenance.
In addition, a further disadvantage of prior art feeders is the use of multiple leg supports and/or tree mounting. Animals may become snared or entangled in these leg supports as they attempt to consume the large quantity of feed that often surrounds the leg supports. As a result, the leg supports and/or feeder are often damaged as the animal tries to free itself In addition, the multiple leg supports provide an effective point of attack for animals attempting to overturn the feeder. Tree mounted feeders are similarly susceptible to wind damage of all types, whether to the feeder itself or to the supporting tree.
With the foregoing in mind, there is a pressing need for a feeder that does not suffer from one or more of the above disadvantages, i.e., that is less susceptible to mechanical failures, that can withstand prolonged exposure to the elements, that minimizes the likelihood of damage, that minimizes loss of feed to non-targeted animal populations, or that efficiently distributes feed to targeted animal populations.